PR 0.90912084?

mistryx · Post by **mistryx** » 2010-03-26 15:19

I was just wondering, we have gotten to 0.9 in five years now what is the next step? we are out of numbers?

1.0? imho a mod like this should never have a final version

<3

rampo · Post by **rampo** » 2010-03-26 15:22

im guessing 0.91

LithiumFox · Post by **LithiumFox** » 2010-03-26 15:23

oh it will and will continue beyond 1.0. But I feel like they need to fix important bugs and add LOADS of new stuff (like statics) cause there are vBF2 things that need to be changed (like statis) where they just kind of reuse the same things (like statics)

See what I did there?

<3 you devs (and i've tried modeling... > > Do NOT have the attention span.. stupid adhd)

Phantom2 · Post by **Phantom2** » 2010-03-26 15:29

We continue into the 1.0

mistryx · Post by **mistryx** » 2010-03-26 15:49

so when will it be released?

(nah just kiddin)

goguapsy · Post by **goguapsy** » 2010-03-26 16:28

I was attracted by the creativity of the thred title.

joep221 · Post by **joep221** » 2010-03-26 17:12

Cant wait for it this is my fav mod

Post by **Rudd** » 2010-03-26 17:22

what you don't realise is that there is a secret plan to never reach 1.0

it'll always move closer and close to 1.0 but it'll never get there...

0.91

0.92

...

0.99

0.999

0.9999.....until we all go insane.

Maxfragg · Post by **Maxfragg** » 2010-03-26 17:40

anybody remembering the Linux Kernel naming problem? they ended up with 0.99 Patchlevel 15 Z before reaching the magic 1.0

steve_06-07 · Post by **steve_06-07** » 2010-03-26 18:26

Think it will continue as now. Next is .95 (unless there's any patch), then the famous, (or infamous?) 1.0, then 1.1, 1.2, blah blah blah.

Zrix · Post by **Zrix** » 2010-03-26 18:30

PR v->1

Post by **bad_nade** » 2010-03-26 18:32

[R-CON]Rudd wrote: 0.9999.....until we all go insane.

You meant more insane than we currently are?

Post by **CodeRedFox** » 2010-03-26 18:35

number is just a number its not like we are going surprise every one with fast ropes in 1.0

Post by **Rudd** » 2010-03-26 18:37

[R-DEV]CodeRedFox wrote:number is just a number its not like we are going surprise ever one with fast ropes in 1.0

don't be suprised if the number of suicides this year is above average on account of that comment...

McBumLuv · Post by **McBumLuv** » 2010-03-26 20:07

[R-CON]Rudd wrote:what you don't realise is that there is a secret plan to never reach 1.0

it'll always move closer and close to 1.0 but it'll never get there...

0.91

0.92

...

0.99

0.999

0.9999.....until we all go insane.

Heh, reminds me of CA's naming scheme

@ CRF, numbers may be numbers, but here's it's equivalent to Y2K, IE not important but people panic

Rambo Hunter · Post by **Rambo Hunter** » 2010-03-26 21:06

Project Reality v(Lim (x->1-))

Peeta · Post by **Peeta** » 2010-03-26 21:08

McLuv wrote:Heh, reminds me of CA's naming scheme

@ CRF, numbers may be numbers, but here's it's equivalent to Y2K, IE not important but people panic

CA was the first thing that came to mind when I saw Rudd's post.

Post by **CodeRedFox** » 2010-03-26 21:28

I think we are just going to jump from 0.9 to 2.7 just to get away form that whole mass craze

rushn · Post by **rushn** » 2010-03-26 22:17

[R-DEV]CodeRedFox wrote:I think we are just going to jump from 0.9 to 2.7 just to get away form that whole mass craze

waaaat???

no fast ropes in 1.0? maybe we can get fastropes in 2.7?

Pedz · Post by **Pedz** » 2010-03-26 23:37

The only number it shouldn't get to is 2.0 =], because that's a different game(is it not?)

PR 0.90912084?

PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?

Re: PR 0.90912084?